IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 November 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210012451 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Through counsel, his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge, and correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his narrative reason for separation as "Secretarial Authority" instead of "Admin Discharge Conduct Triable by Court Martial." APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 11 December 2020 * Counsel’s nine-page brief (undated), with a list of exhibits, as follows: * Exhibit 1 – DD Form 214, for the period ending 19 June 1981 * Exhibit 2 – DD Form 4 (Enlistment or Reenlistment Agreement – Armed Forces of the United States), dated 16 and 18 May 1979 * Exhibit 3 – DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form – Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service), dated 3 June 1981 * Exhibit 4 – DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 9 June 1981 * Exhibit 5 – Greater Portland Health Records, 10 pages with various dates * Exhibit 6 – Medication Lists, two undated pages * Exhibit 7 – Mental Residual Functioning Capacity Questionnaire, six pages dated 28 October 2020 * Exhibit 8 – Medical Provider Statement, dated 13 July 2020 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. Through counsel, the applicant states: a. The majority of his two years of service was honorable; he served one year and nine months of that time in Germany. He was promoted several times, reaching the rank of private first class (PFC). His troubles started after he began suffering from several mental health conditions, notably depression and loneliness. These conditions were exacerbated by the physical distance from his family. He made arrangements to bring his wife to Germany but at the last minute, she decided not to relocate and ended their relationship. This further exacerbated his mental health condition. He failed to report this to his command in a timely manner, which resulted in him receiving several months of a spousal stipend that he was not entitled to receive. b. He greatly regrets this decision [not reporting his change in marital status] and has paid for it; literally and figuratively for 39 years. After his discharge, he was diagnosed with several mental health conditions, notably Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Psychosis. These diagnoses were found to be related to his service. Thus, his case is based on a mental health diagnosis related to his service and should be reviewed and given liberal consideration under the directives of the Hagel, Carson, Kurta, and Wilkie Memoranda. In the interest of equity, his discharge warrants an upgrade to honorable and a change in his narrative reason for separation to secretarial authority. He notes the following contentions: (1) The Army failed to acknowledge his behavior was symptomatic of several diagnosed mental health conditions. His MDD and psychosis were not considered in determining his character of service. (2) He has been deprived of the honor and recognition he deserves as a result of his discharge. A UOTHC discharge is an inequity, in light of his faithful and dutiful service and his mental health conditions. c. Counsel continues in a nine-page brief detailing the applicant’s entrance into the service, the circumstances leading to his preferred court-martial charges, and ultimately his discharge. In his discussion, counsel further explains how each memoranda listed above is relevant to the applicant’s case. d. Counsel concludes his argument by stating the applicant’s mental health conditions were exacerbated by his service in Germany and his separation from his family. His wife deciding not to join him in Germany and ended their marriage, which worsened his condition. He was devastated and suffering when he failed to notify his chain of command. He did not set out to mislead his superiors, he let a bad situation overwhelm him while he was already feeling waylaid by ongoing mental health issues. He has paid for his misconduct and has waited 39 years for recognition that his service should be defined by more than a lapse in judgment during a difficult period in his life. 3. The applicant’s DD Form 4 shows he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 16 May 1979, while awaiting entry in the Regular Army on 18 May 1979. His enlistment contract shows he chose the enlistment option "Unit/Area of Choice of Europe" as his enlistment Area of Choice. He enlisted for "Option H-13, Europe." Army Regulation 601-210 (Personnel Procurement – Regular Army Enlistment Program), Table H-13, in effect at that time, indicated it was used for "U.S. Army Combat Arms Unit/Area of Choice Enlistment Option." 4. The applicant completed his initial entry training, was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 19E (Armor Crewman), and was assigned to the Federal Republic of Germany, where he served from 18 September 1979 through 17 June 1981. He attained the rank/grade of private first class (PFC)/E-3. 5. The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) on 20 March 1980, under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for stealing two headlights, a value of about $20, on or about 30 November 1979. 6. The applicant’s service record contains the following documentation: a. DA Forms 268 (Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions), showing the following: * an Initial Report shows action was initiated against him on 5 February 1981; for pending court-martial for violations of Article 91, disobedience and disrespect towards a non-commissioned officer (NCO); Article 107, making false statement; and Article 121, larceny by depriving the Government * an Interim Report dated 8 April 1981, shows court-martial charges had not been preferred for the offenses on the initial report; U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) was conducting further investigation of the offenses and upon presentation of this evidence, court-martial charges would be contemplated b. DA Form 2800 (CID Report of Investigation (ROI)), final report, dated 22 April 1981, shows the applicant initiated two DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) in his unit, in which he reflected that his family had arrived in Germany, a statement he knew was false, which resulted in him receiving Station Housing Allowance (SHA), Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) and Separate Rations that he was not authorized, totaling $932.13 since September 1980. The report also included sworn statements and interview notes, shown below: * a statement from CPT C_ [applicant commander], dated 2 March 81, wherein he relates personal knowledge of [the applicant’s] wife not being in Germany * a statement from SSG T_, dated 2 March 81, wherein he relates personal knowledge of [the applicant’s] wife not being in Germany, and that he was receiving SHA, COLA, and Separate Rations * the agent noted he reviewed the applicant’s DA Form 201 file {Military Personnel Records Jacket] on 2 March 1980, which documented his wife's residence in Puerto Rico * Agents Investigation Report (AIR) of interviews with the applicant’s wife and her parents, on 27 March 1981, wherein they all stated that marital issues caused their separation about three years prior to the applicant going into the Army; he had failed to support his family; and his wife had never been to Germany * on 15 April 1981, the Staff Judge Advocate’s Office, provided the opinion, the applicant’s offenses of Fraud and Larceny met the element of proof according to the Manual for Courts-Martial 7. Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 29 April 1981, for his violations of the UCMJ. The relevant DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with stealing U.S. Government Property, special allowances, of a value of $932.00, between on or about 15 September 1980 to 28 February 1981. 8. The applicant accepted NJP on 10 March 1981, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for without authority, absenting himself from his place of duty, from on or about 1230 hours, 9 June 1970 through on or about 0800 10 June 1981. 9. The applicant’s service record contains a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form – Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service) that shows he consulted with legal counsel on 3 June 1981 and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial; the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ; the possible effects of a UOTHC discharge; and the procedures and rights that were available to him. a. Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court- martial. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged his understanding that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. b. He was advised he could submit any statements he desired in his own behalf. He elected to submit the following statement: I PFC V_, hereby agree to pay to the U.S. Government the amount of $563.99, which represents the balances owed on the sum total of $932 received by me for special allowances. I understand that this balance must be paid prior to the approval of my request for discharge UP AR 635-200, Chapter·10. Signed by Applicant 10. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on or about 9 June 1981. The relevant Report of Mental Status Evaluation shows he was being considered for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service. His mood and effect were depressed; however, he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. 11. The applicant’s chain of command recommended approval of his request for discharge on 8 June 1981, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, and recommended he receive a UOTHC discharge. 12. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge on 12 June 1981, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He also directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and the issuance of a DD Form 794A (UOTHC Discharge Certificate). 13. The applicant was discharged on 19 June 1981, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged in the lowest enlisted grade; his service was characterized as UOTHC; and his Narrative Reason for Separation was "ADMIN DISCHARGE CONDUCT TRIABLE BY COURT MARTIAL." 14. The applicant was charged due to the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Subsequent to being charged, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. Such discharges are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 15. Counsel provides extracts of the applicant’s service record as detailed above; 10 pages of civilian medical records; two pages of medication lists; six pages of mental residual functional capacity questionnaire; and a Licensed Clinical Social Worker’s statement showing his diagnoses of MDD and Psychosis, for consideration. 16. The Board should consider the applicant's statement in accordance with the published equity, injustice, and clemency determination guidance. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on mental health conditions, including PTSD. The Veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experience may have existed during or might have been aggravated by military service, and that the condition or experience may excuse or mitigate the discharge. 17. MEDICAL REVIEW: The applicant is applying to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge, and correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his narrative reason for separation as "Secretarial Authority" instead of "Admin Discharge Conduct Triable by Court Martial." a. The majority of his two years of service was honorable; he served one year and nine months of that time in Germany. He was promoted several times, reaching the rank of private first class (PFC). His troubles started after he began suffering from several mental health conditions, notably depression and loneliness. These conditions were exacerbated by the physical distance from his family. He made arrangements to bring his wife to Germany but at the last minute, she decided not to relocate and ended their relationship. This further exacerbated his mental health condition. He failed to report this to his command in a timely manner, which resulted in him receiving several months of a spousal stipend that he was not entitled to receive. b. He greatly regrets this decision [not reporting his change in marital status] and has paid for it; literally and figuratively for 39 years. After his discharge, he was diagnosed with several mental health conditions, notably Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Psychosis. These diagnoses were found to be related to his service. Thus, his case is based on a mental health diagnosis related to his service and should be reviewed and given liberal consideration under the directives of the Hagel, Carson, Kurta, and Wilkie Memoranda. c. The ABCMR Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed includes: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 11 December 2020 * Counsel’s nine-page brief (undated), with a list of exhibits, as follows: * Exhibit 1 – DD Form 214, for the period ending 19 June 1981 * Exhibit 2 – DD Form 4 (Enlistment or Reenlistment Agreement – Armed Forces of the United States), dated 16 and 18 May 1979 * Exhibit 3 – DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form – Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service), dated 3 June 1981 * Exhibit 4 – DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 9 June 1981 * Exhibit 5 – Greater Portland Health Records, 10 pages with various dates * Exhibit 6 – Medication Lists, two undated pages * Exhibit 7 – Mental Residual Functioning Capacity Questionnaire, six pages dated 28 October 2020 * Exhibit 8 – Medical Provider Statement, dated 13 July 2020 d. VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was reviewed. e. A review of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) were not reviewed as they were not in use at the time of service. f. The ABCMR Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. The ROP indicates that the applicant entered military service on 18 May 1979 and was discharged on 19 June 1981, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged in the lowest enlisted grade; his service was characterized as UOTHC; and his Narrative Reason for Separation was "ADMIN DISCHARGE CONDUCT TRIABLE BY COURT MARTIAL." g. The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) on 20 March 1980, under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for stealing two headlights, a value of about $20. h. The applicant’s service record contains the following documentation: (1) DA Forms 268 (Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions), showing the following: * an Initial Report shows action was initiated against him on 5 February 1981; for pending court-martial for violations of Article 91, disobedience and disrespect towards a non-commissioned officer (NCO); Article 107, making false statement; and Article 121, larceny by depriving the Government * an Interim Report dated 8 April 1981, shows court-martial charges had not been preferred for the offenses on the initial report; U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) was conducting further investigation of the offenses and upon presentation of this evidence, court-martial charges would be contemplated (2) DA Form 2800 (CID Report of Investigation (ROI)), final report, dated 22 April 1981, shows the applicant initiated two DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) in his unit, in which he reflected that his family had arrived in Germany, a statement he knew was false, which resulted in him receiving Station Housing Allowance (SHA), Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) and Separate Rations that he was not authorized, totaling $932.13 since September 1980. The report also included sworn statements and interview notes, shown below: * a statement from CPT C_ [applicant commander], dated 2 March 81, wherein he relates personal knowledge of [the applicant’s] wife not being in Germany * a statement from SSG T_, dated 2 March 81, wherein he relates personal knowledge of [the applicant’s] wife not being in Germany, and that he was receiving SHA, COLA, and Separate Rations * the agent noted he reviewed the applicant’s DA Form 201 file {Military Personnel Records Jacket] on 2 March 1980, which documented his wife's residence in Puerto Rico * Agents Investigation Report (AIR) of interviews with the applicant’s wife and her parents, on 27 March 1981, wherein they all stated that marital issues caused their separation about three years prior to the applicant going into the Army; he had failed to support his family; and his wife had never been to Germany * on 15 April 1981, the Staff Judge Advocate’s Office, provided the opinion, the applicant’s offenses of Fraud and Larceny met the element of proof according to the Manual for Courts-Martial i. Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 29 April 1981, for his violations of the UCMJ. The relevant DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with stealing U.S. Government Property, special allowances, of a value of $932.00, between on or about 15 September 1980 to 28 February 1981. j. The applicant accepted NJP on 10 March 1981, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for without authority, absenting himself from his place of duty, from on or about 1230 hours, 9 June 1970 through on or about 0800 10 June 1981. k. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on or about 9 June 1981. The relevant Report of Mental Status Evaluation shows he was being considered for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service. His mood and effect were depressed; however, he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. l. The applicant was charged due to the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Subsequent to being charged, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. Such discharges are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. m. Counsel contends that the applicant began the process of moving his wife to Germany, made accommodations for his family, and continued to live there after his wife decided not to move to Germany, receiving special allowances totaling $932. n. A Mental Status Evaluation found the applicant depressed at the time, but did not diagnoses Depression or any other Behavioral health condition. It was not until 5 JUN 2020 that he was diagnosed with psychosis related to his Depression, approximately 39 years after his discharge. There is no evidence that he suffered from psychosis at the time of his discharge. Psychosis causes severely disorganized thoughts and actions. His actions clearly demonstrate well thought out plans. o. A medication Management with Psychotherapy from Greater Portland Health dated 27 FEB 2020, notes that he presents with auditory hallucinations for the past 7 years and that it is unusual for a 55-year-old male to develop psychotic symptoms. Again indicating that his psychotic symptoms began significantly after being discharged from the military. p. Service records indicate that the forms he completed were not just in anticipation of his wife arriving but were forms, “reflecting that his family had arrived in Germany, a statement he knew to be false.” q. A sworn statements dated 2 MAR 1981 notes, “In early October ‘80 upon my return from FTX I recall Vidal bringing a young lady into the troop area and he introduced the lady with him as his wife.” r. JLV contains no Behavioral Health diagnoses. s. The applicant does not have a service connection and although there the applicant was diagnosed with Major Depression and Psychosis years after his military service there is no evidence he had Major Depression or Psychosis or that is was exacerbated by military service, at the time of his discharge. Having a depressed mood on his MSE does not indicate a DSM diagnosis. t. After reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health advisor that the applicant does not have any mitigating diagnosis for his misconduct. There is no evidence that he suffered from Major Depression and/or Psychosis at the time of his discharge. Notwithstanding, even if he had Major Depression it would not mitigate his misconduct (making a false statement, and Larceny). Psychosis at the time would have prevented him from making conscious and organized plans in which he followed up. The applicant met retention standards at the time of discharge. The applicant does not have a service connection Even with applying liberal guidance, the applicant does not have any mitigating factors for his misconduct. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the applicant's (and his counsel's) claim and the review and conclusions of the ARBA Medical Advisor. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official. The applicant does not have a service connection and he does not have any mitigating factors for his misconduct. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING XX: XX: XX: DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program), established the policies and provisions for enlistment in the Regular Army and United States Army Reserve, to give paramount consideration to the enlistment of qualified personnel. Table H-13 of the version in effect at the time, states qualified men without prior service enlisting for three or more years, and qualified prior servicemen enlisting for four or more years; would be guaranteed their choice of assignment to one of the units or areas listed in table H-13A, for a minimum period of 16 months from the date of initial arrival in the unit, or for the normal tour length if enlisting for an overseas area; and training in the applicants choice of either Infantry, Armor, or Field Artillery providing training requirements exist in the combat arm of choice. Table H-13A included U.S. Army Europe as one of the available Unit/Location options. 3. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides that separation codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty. Separation codes and narrative reasons are aligned with applicable regulatory authority paragraphs. The separation code "JFS" is the appropriate code to assign Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, by narrative reason of administrative discharge conduct triable by court-martial. 4. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The version in effect at the time provided that: a. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 10 provided that a member who had committed an offense or offenses, for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate. 5. The Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR), on 3 September 2014 [Hagel Memorandum], to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 6. The Acting Principle Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) provided clarifying guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 24 February 2016 [Carson Memorandum]. The memorandum directed the BCM/NRs to waive the statute of limitations. Fairness and equity demand, in cases of such magnitude that a Veteran's petition receives full and fair review, even if brought outside of the time limit. Similarly, cases considered previously, either by DRBs or BCM/NRs, but without benefit of the application of the Supplemental Guidance, shall be, upon petition, granted de novo review utilizing the Supplemental Guidance. 7. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) provided clarifying guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 August 2017 [Kurta Memorandum]. The memorandum directed them to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Standards for review should rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each Veteran a reasonable opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. a. Guidance documents are not limited to UOTHC discharge characterizations but rather apply to any petition seeking discharge relief including requests to change the narrative reason, re-enlistment codes, and upgrades from general to honorable characterizations. b. An honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service. Many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct. c. Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade. Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; or behaviors commonly associated with sexual assault or sexual harassment; and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances. 8. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) issued guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 July 2018 [Wilkie Memorandum], regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. a. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, Boards shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210012451 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1